Will the `Real' Gifted Students Please Stand Up?

The design and implementation of a process for identifying gifted students in a school system often leaves educators questioning their ability to differentiate between very bright and gifted students. The plethora of definitions offered by researchers and educational agencies adds to this confusion. The educational community of the Westport School System in Connecticut determined the need to establish an accurate definition of and identification process for the selection of gifted youngsters. This article provides an overview and discussion of the gifted identification process developed to assist the Westport educational community with appropriately identifying very bright and gifted students.

Background

Westport is an affluent, suburban town located in lower Fairfield County, Connecticut. The school population is approximately 3,600 students, with 84% of graduates attending four year colleges and 7% attending two year colleges. There are three elementary schools (K-4), two middle schools (5-8), and one high school (9-12).

Westport has had a program for its gifted youngsters for 25 years, but it did not have a systematic, equitable process for identification of its gifted children. Inclusion was based on the classroom teacher's observations, knowledge of gifted behaviors, classroom experiences and parental pressure. The inaccuracy of the selection process was often debated by the teaching staff as well as parents. The staff of the elementary schools in Westport found it difficult to justify those identified as gifted. From school to school, there was a gender imbalance and a variation in the intellectual levels which made programming for these students difficult.

In Westport, giftedness is currently defined as measured intellectual ability at or above the 99th percentile and demonstrated intellectual sophistication and higher order thinking skills in classroom performance. This information was obtained through six critical components: a referral form, student rating questionnaire, examples of classroom performance, parent assessment questionnaire, Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, and performance-based assessment.

At the beginning of the 1994-1995 school year, the first year of the revised program, professional development activities were introduced to educate parents and teachers about the process of and the criteria for selection of gifted youngsters. After these yearly activities, the educational community of teachers, administrators and parents nominated candidates for identification as gifted. A screening portfolio was opened for each nominee which contained the six critical components gathered for each student.

The referral form asked teachers to describe the reasons for nomination. The student rating questionnaire compared the nominated students to their peers on behaviors typically associated with gifted students. This brief scale is similar in content to the Renzulli and Hartman (1971) Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students.

The third portfolio component of three or more indicators of classroom performance supporting a student's nomination included anecdotal information, photographs, videotapes, research projects, classroom assignments and audiotapes.

The parent assessment questionnaire, completed for each nominated student, revealed the child's development prior to entering school and expanded upon the student's special interests, play activities, imagination and curiosity. The questionnaire gave the screening committee an opportunity to view the child through the eyes of the parents.

The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (Otis & Lennon, 1993) results, the fifth portfolio component, measured general reasoning ability and gave a verbal, non-verbal and total school ability index.

The final portfolio component, performance based tasks in language arts and math conducted in the classroom, involved problem solving tasks that were instructional, simulated the classroom environment, and provided a public record of the task (Guthrie, Van Meter & Mitchell, 1994).

The completed portfolio was presented to a screening committee in each building consisting of a building administrator, classroom teacher(s), town-wide instructional support teacher(s), teacher of the gifted, school psychologist and the Coordinator of Psychological Services. Students meeting previously established district criteria were identified as gifted. It is important to note that individual opinions and assessment tools were given equal consideration. In 1994-95, 12.58% of the student pool was identified as gifted. In 1995-96, 9.38% of the student pool was identified as gifted.

Evaluation/Followup

The Westport identification process was evaluated in a two-step manner. At the end of the first year of screening, a questionnaire was sent to teachers asking them to anonymously evaluate the components of the screening process on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The results of the questionnaire indicated that the staff found the identification process valuable and felt it identified gifted youngsters. The teachers also noted the identification process furthered their understanding of the children in their classroom and recommendations were formulated for the next school year. These included additional staff development workshops, continued development of the performance based tasks, further development of the indicators of classroom performance, and continuation of the identification process for the following school year.

At the end of the second year of the program, Dr. Lisa Wright of Columbia University, as a consultant, evaluated the selection process. She noted the overwhelming success of the identification procedure as accurately identifying gifted students. Recommendations from this evaluation included the sharing of the screening folder with parents of identified gifted students, continuation of the identification process, and the offering of yearly systematic professional development for staff and parents. Overall, the Westport gifted selection procedures incorporated a continuing evaluation and followup methodology designed to improve assessment, identification, and curriculum components.

As Westport continued to fine tune the process of gifted identification, the power and importance of the various components became increasingly evident. Westport utilized a six component process: a referral form, student rating questionnaire, examples of classroom performance, parent assessment questionnaire, Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, and performance based assessment. The impact of the systematic identification process enabled the discrimination of the very bright from the truly gifted student in Westport. This process may assist other school systems with identifying their gifted population.

REFERENCES

Clark, B. (1993). Growing up gifted (4th ed). New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Guthrie, J., Van Meter, P., & Mitchell, A. (1994). Performance assessment in reading and language arts. The Reading Teacher, 48 (3), 266-271.

Otis, A. & Lennon, R. (1993). Otis-Lennon school ability test. Texas: Psychological Corporation.

Renzulli, J. & Hartman, R. (1971). Scale for rating behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38 (3), 243-248.

Barbara A. Fischetti, D.ED. is the Coordinator of Psychological Services PreK-8, for the Westport Public Schools, Westport, CT. Karen Emanuelson, M.A. is the Mathematics Specialist (K-5) for the Westport Public Schools, Westport, C.T. Ann Shames, M.S. is the Language Arts Specialist (K-5) for the Westport Public Schools, Westport, C.T.

Manuscript submitted January, 1997. Revision accepted June, 1997.